Officers for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will be equipped with much-delayed body cameras by the end of next month, it was reported on Friday. But experts have questioned the transparency of a policy that allows the ICE director to restrict the public release of footage unless “it is in the best interests of the agency”.
So, by the transitive property, if the footage is not released then it assumed to be not in the agency’s best interests?
Also every camera malfunction they try to claim, or footage gone missing, it’s all just an admission of wrong doing.
and what little might get released is carefully crafted to support their own (and most likely, totally bullshit) narrative. the rest of the clip, the rest of the videos from all the other cameras… they don’t exist.
So now, as a potential grand juror, I can now be certain that anything a prosecutor says is absolutely not true unless they produce the video evidence unequivocally proving it so.
Thank you for helping me make a better decision.
(I know ICE doesn’t have jurors, but I assume this will be officially adopted by other departments.
I think that is contrapositive, not transitive.
Logically, I don’t think so. They said basically that if something’s released, it’s in their best interests. So, Released(x) --> BestInterestsOfICE(x).
You can’t derive !Released(x) --> !BestInterestsOfICE(x) from that statement.
Yes you can actually. You’d be correct if they were supposed to release everything, like a daily upload to public channels of every single bodycam in the organization, but that is not and never has been a thing.
You can derive that under the conditions that exist every time releasing footage becomes a consideration. Yes that is not how general logic works but general logic is not universally applicable.